Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 9 Oct 2001 16:49:18 -0500
From:      Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>
To:        NGH <bsd_appliance@yahoo.com>
Cc:        freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: SSSCA?
Message-ID:  <15299.28894.97760.994589@guru.mired.org>
In-Reply-To: <20011009212648.94725.qmail@web11908.mail.yahoo.com>
References:  <15299.18752.343449.732026@guru.mired.org> <20011009212648.94725.qmail@web11908.mail.yahoo.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
NGH <bsd_appliance@yahoo.com> types:
> --- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> wrote:
> > Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> types:
> > > I pos facto.
> > > (Translation: you can't make something illegal after the fact).
> > But you can always make doing it again illegal.
> That's *exactly* what concerns me. If this horror of a law passes,
> and I wouldn't be surprised if it did, as entertainment companies
> have deep pockets and can push these things through

Since they've been rewriting copyright law to their advantage pretty
much at will for over a century, there's a lot of precedent for them
to succeed here.g

> then one of three things would happen:
>
> 1. Free or Open software would be illegal in the U.S., or
> 2. Licensing, NDAs, etc. effectively make said software impossible
>    to distribute, or
> 3. Both of the above.

It's the middle one that's the problem. The SSSCA doesn't outlaw any
particular class of software, it just requires all software to contain
an as yet unspecified antitheft technology.

> What further concerns me is that SSSCA is very broad and general.
> If I read it correctly, it affects all digital devices, meaning
> nearly all electronics in the country, whether or not they're
> related to entertainment. This means Disney's policeware needs to
> be present in, say, control systems for industrial machines. We
> are essentially looking at a huge "tax" (in license fees) on
> anything digital.

It covers programs as well as devices.

> This means that hobbyists and guys who work out of garages won't
> be able to (legally) make electronic components. 

Actually, it wouldn't shut down hobbyists. It would make it illegal
for the hobbyists to sell or give away such such things after they
built them - unless they incorporated the appropriate technology. My
worry is that the licensing issues will kill garage startups. The
extra financial burden would have killed Apple, and possibly HP. MS
would have been just fine, as Gates was rich before he founded the
company.

It also makes it illegal to disable the technology in any device which
has it. Which means that while it would be perfectly legal for me to
give someone a copy of FreeBSD that predates the legislation, it would
be illegal for them to install it over an OS that included that
legislation.

> This kind of legislation would stuff entertainment companies'
> pockets at the enormous loss of legitimate individuals and
> businesses.

They've been doing that for over a century. Either by tweaking
copyright law, or more recently in collusion with hardware
companies. John Gilmore describes some of the cases in <URL:
http://www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html >.

> Of course, one thing always leads to another. SSSCA is the next step
> after DMCA. You have to stop for a moment and ask yourself, what
> comes after this?

The inability of consumers to actually own a copy of any content,
instead requiring that they to for each use. Legal and financial
obstacles to the production of any content that might compete with the
people behind the bill, along the lines of DMR or the DVD recorders
described by John.

	<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>			http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Q: How do you make the gods laugh?		A: Tell them your plans.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15299.28894.97760.994589>